On the other hand the "two shot" kill from the mortar pit should be remove either by changing the timing of the mortar firing or by changing one mortar to barrage and the other auto-fire.
This seriously needs to be fixed. Thanks to horrible spacing, its entirely possible for a mortar to insta-wipe entire squads (OST 4-man squads) with literally zero reaction time for Axis, and with zero user input from the UKF player - it's insane.
It needs to be changed so that one fires, and half-way through the reload the other mortar fires. This ensures round spacing, gives Axis some time to react, and prevents 'zero-input' squad wipes.
The biggest problem is that OKW tech isn't very flexible. They usually need Mechanized, but back-teching to Battlegroup to get an ISG or two to counter the mortar pit is too expensive and time consuming. Ostheer can relatively comfortably avoid it and go for T4 and counter with a Brummbar or a Panzerwerfer (which can both shoot over obstacles and deal significant damage).
On top of that a major issue is that the Stuka is consistently ineffective against emplacements because its rockets have 0 penetration, which means that when directly hitting the 5 armor Mortar Pit they will "bounce" and cause only a measly 40 deflection damage (maybe 60 because of the target table but I'm not sure if the 1.5 multiplier applies to deflection damage) rather than the full 200 damage (it has the same issue against units like the Ambulance). This makes it noticeable worse against emplacements than the Panzerwerfer.
Because the Stuka is already very good as is and doesn't really need any buffs without reworking it, but that'd likely be too much of an undertaking at this point.
It seems like the 'easy' answer is to give the Stuka 5 pen (not 50, as someone else suggested). This would essentially only change its interaction with UKF emplacements, while leaving everything else the same. Its very unlikely that the "direct hit does less than a miss" nature is the intended design.
Alternatively, as you pointed out, OKW's tech is inflexible; maybe this should be addressed. The main issue, from what I can tell, is that going Med-truck leaves you too open to LVs, whereas going Mech leaves you without any strong sustained indirect fire. As LVs are essentially a given in any high-level match, this forces OKW into going Mech first, every time.
One solution could be to give the Flak-HT an "AP Round" toggle (or timed ability) that gives it, for example, 60 pen - but zero splash damage. Due to the nature of the Flak-HT, it couldn't chase vehicles, but it could hold them off quite effectively. This could make Med viable against UKF in team-games, while keeping Mech unchanged. As a result, going med-first in these UKF/Sov match-ups would be viable, and emplacements less dominant.
Lastly, I wanted to point out that the Brummbar is not a viable counter for emplacements behind shot-blockers. Its arc is fairly low, and will often hit either the structure or rubble when firing over it.
I like how mortar pit went from useless popcap waste to most op unit in game without any kind of change exclusively because it was used in tournament on very tight maps where most of them are not even in automatch.
Almost as if the people who think it's OP are absolutely clueless.
This happens in a lot of games, and fairly often. While the map choice for UUT2 is interesting, changes to surrounding units (or other gameplay factors) can also dramatically influence gameplay choices. A great example of this is CSGO's "AUG", where it went from essentially unused to completely dominant in competitive play despite almost zero changes (a 4% price drop).
Essentially, player perception and "meta discoveries" (i.e. learning new tricks) can cause changes in gameplay despite their being no stat changes. It's happened in CoH before; vCoH pios went from "basically useless" to "unstoppable insanity" when one player ('Mags' iirc) figured out Piospam - but there were no stat changes that caused this.
On the topic of the mortar pit it should be noted that the maps that were played most (Wolfheze, Elst and Arnhem Country) all have positions on the Allied side from which a mortar pit can cover 1-2 VPs with near impunity. As opposed to maps like Rails and Metal or Fields of Winnekendonk. It also surprised me to see even the best teams not even attempting to properly counter them (ISGs, flame grenades, etc.) and instead either tried to ignore them or used ineffective Stuka barrages.
We're (essentially) back at the pre-nerf brace problem. While the mortar pit is counter-able, the amount of effort and resources required is massively disproportionate, and that over-investment leaves axis open to attacks from other units. This is especially problematic on the maps you mentioned, as it means investing heavily into indirect fire units, which aren't effective against mobile infantry or tanks, which make up most of the Allies armies.
A mortar pit is 400mp and 8 pop.
As you pointed out, the Stuka is ineffective due to brace preventing most damage, and even without brace, 2 direct hits (2 rockets) won't destroy it. As a result, OKW is forced into a sub-optimal med-truck play, in addition to spending at least 540mp on two LeiGs (one won't counter it). This puts OKW at an incredibly large disadvantage mid-game, as they'll have nothing other than Raks to counter the inevitable light vehicles.
OST is in a similar situation, where they need to either micro multiple mortars (520mp), or vet them up to unlock counter-barrage (again, likely 520mp). The only other options are waiting until late-game, or investing in a mortar half-track (STUG-E is too late, and can be blocked by shot-blockers, not to mention its shorter range); however, MHTs are only available on the "Festung Support Doctrine" (which is terrible) and the "Spearhead Doctrine", which means you're locked into one doctrine every game.
Basically, for 400mp and 8 pop, UKF gets both an incredibly resilient "MP Bleed" machine (that requires no micro) as well as a massive sink for Axis to 'dump' resources in to in an attempt to stop it.
Which has proven to be pointless since the Puma has aimed shot and a lot of mobility and smoke, same with AEC, while the su76 dies if it's caught out of position and dived.
The fact noone builds the SU76 and everyone builds AEC/Puma is a good indication that range isn't the end of everything.
TDs lose when they are out of position and dived on; that's supposed to happen. I'm not surprised when STUGs/JP4s are destroyed when they're caught of position and rushed/flanked, either.
As for 'no one building' the Su76, that's simply because it's over-shadowed by better choices for each role. Against OST, early/mid game AT isn't needed since their LVs can easily be beaten by the T70 and/or PTRS upgraded infantry. Meanwhile, mobile artillery is better supplied by mortars and Zis-3s, which have the added bonus of saving on fuel. As a result, the AI power of the T70 is much more valuable when directly choosing between the two, when playing against OST.
Against OKW, I'd argue that the T70's AI power is, again, much more important. Additionally, OKW's mid/late game units tend of have more armor (P4-J/JP4) than OSTs, making the SU76s pen too low to be effective once those mid/late units arrive. Essentially, the Su76 doesn't scale against OST.
The problem is, the proposed buffs increase the SU-76's power in both roles. Its AI power becomes higher, due to more frequent barrages, and its AT power increases (indirectly) because its much more mobile - and less likely to be destroyed when out of position, or when its dived on. Because of this, and because of OST's lower mid/late game armor values (compared to OKW), that increased mobility means the SU-76 becomes more effective - making it a viable "spam" (i.e. when building 3+ of them) counter against essentially all of OST's T3 units, while simultaneously providing fire against OST's static units (MG42, Pak40, etc.).
This vomparison is very misleading. Raw penetration values mean nothing. Also accuracy values (plus ideally scatter) is missing. I don't have their current stats at hand, but SU76 got a rework a year ago or so where its accuracy was nerfed iirc. I don't know about how it compares to the Stug at the moment.
Additionally, the increased health and the 40 difference in damage are a huge deal. It's the difference why StuG is a very effective anti medium vehicle while SOV players rarely go for an SU76 to counter mediums. SOV has more cost effevtive AT units, yes, but the SU76 is quite unreliable especially against OKW P4s and the low damage make it very hard to actually finish it off.
I don't think OPs suggestions would fix SOV T3, but I also doubt that it would make the SU76 broken.
Not sure how I missed accuracy, since it was in the video and my notes. Anyway:
Scatter angle for both is 5. Distance offsets/ratios are a bit different, but to be honest, I don't know how those impact gameplay.
As for the rest, I know the SU76 isn't effective against OKW's P4; I specifically made the comparison with OST for this reason. OKW also has the JP4, which at 60 range, can return fire - its the same reason why OKW is much less vulnerable to "60 range TDs" in team games (M36, SU85, etc.). As for OST, the Stug's armor is low enough that the SU76 has a 100% chance to pen at max range, but its speed and range is low enough that it can't return fire. Meanwhile OST has no 60-range TDs, meaning they can't actually return fire.
Yes a slight mobility increase to the worst and most immobile TD in the game, which noone builds, will make one of the best TDs in the game into an absolute joke. Never mind the fact you called the StuGG underwhelming.
You’re talking about units you don’t understand.
This is objectively false. The Su76 is actually one of the fastest and most mobile TDs in the game, and the fastest and most mobile case-mate TD in the game.
Taking the fastest, most mobile, case-mate TD in the game, making it even faster, while keeping its 60 range will inherently make a slower, 50-range, more expensive TD a joke - especially when it has a 100% chance to pen.
I'm sure you'll see all these infantry crushing SU-76 on the front lines, even closer to the action then T-70, vipper said so, so it must be true, he can't be wrong and its a fact.
What? This doesn't even address what I said. I'd call it a straw-man, but it's not even against my own argument. I never mentioned anything about the SU-76 crushing infantry, and explicitly stated it would be fighting at max range - so how is this relevant?
Everything is OP in 4v4, when massed, that is not an argument.
Plus, you'd have to destroy all the fuel caches first to be able to build muni ones.
Well, unfortunately the game still needs to be balanced in those modes.
So why its not being done?
Everything looks good on paper.
Why is what not being done? Zis barrage spamming has/is being done effectively in higher-level team games. However, its counterable since the Zis-3 is slow and can be easily counter-barraged and/or decrewed. The SU-76 would be far too mobile and immune to counter-barrage if it took that role.
It also isn't going to be a problem, unless you never go beyond P4.
It takes 8 shots to kill panther, 7 when vetted, 14-15 taking armor into account.
If you need to shoot at something 16 times and its not infantry squad vs other infantry squad, you don't exactly look at "hard" counter.
Sure, except the Su76 shows up before Stugs and P4s, let alone panthers. And because they're so cheap, they'd likely be spammed (3-4 of them). You've also completely ignored the problem of having a highly mobile, "immune to artillery", barraging unit facing against OST, who relies heavily on static units.
StuG is not supposed to go against SU-76.
Its med tank counter.
Then what's the SU-76 supposed to be? Because it certainly wouldn't be a light-TD with those buffs.
T-70 speed is 6.9.
Its not invincible to meds thanks to it.
The T-70 has 40 range - it needs to get in range of STUGs and even P4s to do anything. The SU-76 has 10 to 20 more range than either of those tanks.
Barrage cost hefty amount of muni.
Soviets are overbloated with abilities that cost hefty amount of muni.
If you'll see a lot of this glorified mortar barrage, you will not encounter mines, offmaps or sprinting cons throwing stuff.
You need to consider all game modes. While this is true in 1v1 and 2v2, consider muni-cache spammed 4v4s.
Could you guess why ZiS-3 doesn't do constant barrages despite 30 sec cd?
It might have something to do with previous point. In case you haven't used SU-76 for last 2 years, its barrage costs quite a bit of muni now, this is specifically why that short SU-76 spam meta died.
Again; team games. Zis-3 barrage spamming can actually be quite effective in larger games, especially if its well coordinated.
Would you prefer to see T-70 in every singular soviet game until the death of multiplayer?
No, but making the SU-76 an OST hard-counter isn't the solution.
-Barrage recharge from 80 to 30
-Speed from 6.3 to 6.7-6.9
-Rotation rate from 32 to 36-38
Secondly; no to all. This will brick OST and turn the STUG-G, which is already pretty underwhelming, into an absolute joke. Let's compare the current stug to the proposed 'buffed' SU-76.
280mp, 75f, 8 pop
400mp, 75/35 armor, 20 size
6.8 or 6.9 speed, 2.3/4.4 acc/deacc, 36 or 38 rotation
120dmg, 160 far pen, 4.9-5.4 reload, 60 range
280mp, 90f, 10 pop
560hp, 140/70 armor, 17 size
6 speed, 2.1 accel, 28 rotation
160dmg, 170 far pen, 4.5-5.5 reload, 50 range
So; for 15 less fuel and 2 less pop, you get a unit that would be untouchable by the more expensive STUG; it would accelerate much faster, has a much higher top speed, and turns faster, while also having 10 more range and a 100% chance to pen it at max range.
That would be 'fine', but it also pushes the speed above every other OST unit. P4 dives? The P4's top speed is 6.3 with 2.1 acceleration; it also wouldn't be able to actually catch it. Even the panther's 6.6 speed and 2.4 acceleration wouldn't be able to catch it. Meanwhile, the SU-76 would have 10 to 15 more range than either of those units.
Realistically, OST's only counter would be the doc-locked Puma (7.2 speed, 4.5 acell), but its main benefit is being able to flank. With the SU-76s buffed rotation speed, it would need to circle-strafe the Su-76 at a very close range, making it extremely vulnerable to snares (since its also insta-snared).
Now, you might say that this is OK, since it would still be very squishy. That would be fine, but you're also pushing it more into the "support artillery" role. At 80 range, the SU-76 out-ranges any and all AT OST has to offer, except the Elefant. But now its going to be barraging every 30 seconds (in teamgames, you'd have the res) - which would be incredibly powerful against the largely static OST units (MG42, Pak40, LMG Grens, etc.).
Additionally, it'll be doing those constant barrages while being immune to counter-barrages. In your video, you brought up that the Zis-3's cooldown is 30sec vs. 80 on the SU-76; the reason for this because the Zis-3 is vulnerable to counter arty. While it can fire more often, it can be quickly decrewed; a barraging SU-76 isn't at risk from mortars, LeFHs or even PWerfers.
So, essentially, you're suggesting making the SU-76 an early-game TD that's faster than every stock AT solution OST has, while also being incredibly cheap. Then rounding out its late-game squishy nature by giving it an incredible secondary role.